Einstein plagiarised the work of several notable
scientists in his 1905 papers on special relativity and E=mc2,
yet the physics community has never bothered to set the record straight.

AbstractProponents of Einstein have acted in a way that
appears to corrupt the historical record. Albert Einstein (1879-1955), Time magazine's "Person of the Century", wrote a long treatise
on special relativity theory (it was actually called "On the Electrodynamics
of Moving Bodies", 1905a), without listing any references. Many of
the key ideas it presented were known to Lorentz (for example, the
Lorentz transformation) and Poincaré before Einstein wrote the famous
1905 paper.

As was typical of Einstein, he did not discover theories; he merely
commandeered them. He took an existing body of knowledge, picked and
chose the ideas he liked, then wove them into a tale about his contribution
to special relativity. This was done with the full knowledge and consent
of many of his peers, such as the editors at Annalen der Physik.

The most recognisable equation of all time is E=mc2.
It is attributed by convention to be the sole province of Albert Einstein
(1905). However, the conversion of matter into energy and energy into
matter was known to Sir Isaac Newton ("Gross bodies and light are
convertible into one another...", 1704). The equation can be attributed
to S. Tolver Preston (1875), to Jules Henri Poincaré (1900; according
to Brown, 1967) and to Olinto De Pretto (1904) before Einstein. Since
Einstein never correctly derived E=mc2 (Ives, 1952),
there appears nothing to connect the equation with anything original
by Einstein.

Arthur Eddington's selective presentation of data from the 1919 eclipse
so that it supposedly supported "Einstein's" general relativity theory
is surely one of the biggest scientific hoaxes of the 20th century.
His lavish support of Einstein corrupted the course of history. Eddington
was less interested in testing a theory than he was in crowning Einstein
the king of science.

The physics community, unwittingly perhaps, has engaged in a kind
of fraud and silent conspiracy; this is the byproduct of simply being
bystanders as the hyperinflation of Einstein's record and reputation
took place. This silence benefited anyone supporting Einstein.

Introduction
Science, by its very nature, is insular. In general, chemists read
and write about chemistry, biologists read and write about biology,
and physicists read and write about physics. But they may all be competing
for the same research dollar (in its broadest sense). Thus, if scientists
wanted more money for themselves, they might decide to compete unfairly.
The way they can do this is convince the funding agencies that they
are more important than any other branch of science. If the funding
agencies agree, it could spell difficulty for the remaining sciences.
One way to get more money is to create a superhero-a superhero like
Einstein.

Einstein's standing is the product of the physics community, his followers
and the media. Each group benefits enormously by elevating Einstein
to icon status. The physics community receives billions in research
grants, Einstein's supporters are handsomely rewarded, and media corporations
like Time magazine get to sell millions of magazines by placing
Einstein on the cover as "Person of the Century".

When the scandal breaks, the physics community, Einstein's supporters
and the media will attempt to downplay the negative news and put a
positive spin on it. However, their efforts will be shown up when
Einstein's paper, "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies", is seen
for what it is: the consummate act of plagiarism in the 20th century.

Special Relativity
Jules Henri Poincaré (1854-1912) was a great scientist who made a
significant contribution to special relativity theory. The Internet
Encyclopedia of Philosophy website states that Poincaré: (1) "sketched
a preliminary version of the special theory of relativity"; (2) "stated
that the velocity of light is a limit velocity" (in his 1904 paper
from the Bull. of Sci. Math. 28, Poincaré indicated "a whole
new mechanics, where the inertia increasing with the velocity of light
would become a limit and not be exceeded"); (3) suggested that "mass
depends on speed"; (4) "formulated the principle of relativity, according
to which no mechanical or electromagnetic experiment can discriminate
between a state of uniform motion and a state of rest"; and (5) "derived
the Lorentz transformation".

It is evident how deeply involved with special relativity Poincaré
was. Even Keswani (1965) was prompted to say that "As far back as
1895, Poincaré, the innovator, had conjectured that it is impossible
to detect absolute motion", and that "In 1900, he introduced 'the
principle of relative motion' which he later called by the equivalent
terms 'the law of relativity' and 'the principle of relativity' in
his book, Science and Hypothesis, published in 1902". Einstein
acknowledged none of this preceding theoretical work when he wrote
his unreferenced 1905 paper.

In addition to having sketched the preliminary version of relativity,
Poincaré provided a critical part of the whole concept-namely, his
treatment of local time. He also originated the idea of clock synchronisation,
which is critical to special relativity.

Charles Nordman was prompted to write "They will show that the credit
for most of the things which are currently attributed to Einstein
is, in reality, due to Poincaré", and "...in the opinion of the Relativists
it is the measuring rods which create space, the clocks which create
time. All this was known by Poincaré and others long before the time
of Einstein, and one does injustice to truth in ascribing the discovery
to him".

Other scientists have not been quite as impressed with "Einstein's"
special relativity theory as has the public. "Another curious feature
of the now famous paper, Einstein, 1905, is the absence of any reference
to Poincaré or anyone else," Max Born wrote in Physics in My Generation.
"It gives you the impression of quite a new venture. But that is,
of course, as I have tried to explain, not true" (Born, 1956). G.
Burniston Brown (1967) noted, "It will be seen that, contrary to popular
belief, Einstein played only a minor part in the derivation of the
useful formulae in the restricted or special relativity theory, and
Whittaker called it the relativity theory of Poincaré and Lorentz...
"

Due to the fact that Einstein's special relativity theory was known
in some circles as the relativity theory of Poincaré and Lorentz,
one would think that Poincaré and Lorentz might have had something
to do with its creation. What is disturbing about the Einstein paper
is that even though Poincaré was the world's leading expert on relativity,
apparently Einstein had never heard of him nor thought he had done
anything worth referencing!

Poincaré, in a public address delivered in September 1904, made some
notable comments on special relativity theory. "From all these results,
if they are confirmed, would arise an entirely new mechanics...would
be, above all, characterised by this fact that no velocity could surpass
that of light...because bodies would oppose an increasing inertia
to the causes, which would tend to accelerate their motion; and this
inertia would become infinite when one approached the velocity of
light... No more for an observer carried along himself in a translation,
he did not suspect any apparent velocity could surpass that of light:
and this would be then a contradiction, if we recall that this observer
would not use the same clocks as a fixed observer, but, indeed, clocks
marking 'local time'." (Poincaré, 1905)

Einstein, the Plagiarist
It is now time to speak directly to the issue of what Einstein was:
he was first and foremost a plagiarist. He had few qualms about stealing
the work of others and submitting it as his own. That this was deliberate
seems obvious.

Take this passage from Ronald W Clark, Einstein: The Life and Times (there are no references to Poincaré here; just a few meaningless
quotes). This is how page 101 reads: "'On the Electrodynamics of Moving
Bodies'...is in many ways one of the most remarkable scientific papers
that had ever been written. Even in form and style it was unusual, lacking the notes and references which give weight to most serious
expositions..." (emphasis added).

Why would Einstein, with his training as a patent clerk, not recognise
the need to cite references in his article on special relativity?
One would think that Einstein, as a neophyte, would overreference rather than underreference.

Wouldn't one also expect somewhat higher standards from an editor
when faced with a long manuscript that had obviously not been credited?
Apparently there was no attempt at quality control when it was published
in Annalen der Physik. Most competent editors would have rejected
the paper without even reading it. At the barest minimum, one would
expect the editor to research the literature to determine whether
Einstein's claim of primacy was correct.

Max Born stated, "The striking point is that it contains not
a single reference to previous literature" (emphasis added) (Born,
1956). He is clearly indicating that the absence of references is
abnormal and that, even by early 20th century standards, this is most
peculiar, even unprofessional.

Einstein twisted and turned to avoid plagiarism charges, but these
were transparent.

From Bjerknes (2002), we learn the following passage from James MacKaye:
"Einstein's explanation is a dimensional disguise for Lorentz's… Thus
Einstein's theory is not a denial of, nor an alternative for, that
of Lorentz. It is only a duplicate and disguise for it... Einstein
continually maintains that the theory of Lorentz is right, only he
disagrees with his 'interpretation'. Is it not clear, therefore, that
in this [case], as in other cases Einstein's theory is merely a disguise
for Lorentz's, the apparent disagreement about 'interpretation' being
a matter of words only?"

Poincaré wrote 30 books and over 500 papers on philosophy, mathematics
and physics. Einstein wrote on mathematics, physics and philosophy,
but claimed he had never read Poincaré's contributions to physics.

Yet many of Poincaré's ideas  for example, that the speed of
light is a limit and that mass increases with speed  wound up
in Einstein's paper "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" without
being credited.

Einstein's act of stealing almost the entire body of literature by
Lorentz and Poincaré to write his document raised the bar for plagiarism.
In the information age, this kind of plagiarism could never be perpetrated
indefinitely, yet the physics community has still not set the record
straight.

In his 1907 paper, Einstein spelled out his views on plagiarism: "It
appears to me that it is the nature of the business that what follows
has already been partly solved by other authors. Despite that fact,
since the issues of concern are here addressed from a new point of
view, I am entitled to leave out a thoroughly pedantic survey of the
literature..."

With this statement, Einstein declared that plagiarism, suitably packaged,
is an acceptable research tool.

Here is the definition of "to plagiarise" from an unimpeachable source,
Webster's New International Dictionary of the English Language,
Second Edition, Unabridged, 1947, p. 1,878: "To steal or purloin and
pass off as one's own (the ideas, words, artistic productions, etc.
of one another); to use without due credit the ideas, expressions
or productions of another. To commit plagiarism" (emphasis added).
Isn't this exactly what Einstein did?

Giving due credit involves two aspects: timeliness and appropriateness.
Telling the world that Lorentz provided the basis for special relativity
30 years after the fact is not timely (see below), is not appropriate
and is not giving due credit. Nothing Einstein wrote ex post facto
with respect to Lorentz's contributions alters the fundamental act
of plagiarism.

The true nature of Einstein's plagiarism is set forth in his 1935
paper, "Elementary Derivation of the Equivalence of Mass and Energy",
where, in a discussion on Maxwell, he wrote, "The question as to the
independence of those relations is a natural one because the Lorentz
transformation, the real basis of special relativity theory..."
(emphasis added).

So, Einstein even acknowledged that the Lorentz transformation was
the real basis of his 1905 paper. Anyone who doubts that he was a
plagiarist should ask one simple question: "What did Einstein know,
and when did he know it?" Einstein got away with premeditated plagiarism,
not the incidental plagiarism that is ubiquitous (Moody, 2001).

The History of E=mc2
Who originated the concept of matter being transformed into energy
and vice versa? It dates back at least to Sir Isaac Newton (1704).
Brown (1967) made the following statement: "Thus gradually arose the
formula E =mc2, suggested without general proof by Poincaré
in 1900".

One thing we can say with certainty is that Einstein did not originate
the equation E=mc2. Then the question becomes: "Who did?"
Bjerknes (2002) suggested as a possible candidate S Tolver Preston,
who "formulated atomic energy, the atom bomb and superconductivity
back in the 1870s, based on the formula E=mc2".

In addition to Preston, a major player in the history of E = mc2 who deserves much credit is Olinto De Pretto (1904). What makes this
timing so suspicious is that Einstein was fluent in Italian, he was
reviewing papers written by Italian physicists and his best friend
was Michele Besso, a Swiss Italian. Clearly, Einstein (1905b) would
have had access to the literature and the competence to read it. In
"Einstein's E=mc2 'was Italian's idea'" (Carroll, 1999).
We see clear evidence that De Pretto was ahead of Einstein in terms
of the formula E = mc2.

In terms of his understanding the vast amount of energy that could
be released with a small amount of mass, Preston (1875) can be credited
with knowing this before Einstein was born. Clearly, Preston was using
the E = mc2 formula in his work, because the value he determined
 e.g., that one grain could lift a 100,000-ton object up to
a height of 1.9 miles  yields the equation E=mc2.

According to Ives (1952), the derivation Einstein attempted of the
formula E=mc2 was fatally flawed because Einstein set
out to prove what he assumed. This is similar to the careless handling
of the equations for radioactive decay which Einstein derived. It
turns out that Einstein mixed kinematics and mechanics, and out popped
the neutrino. The neutrino may be a mythical particle accidentally
created by Einstein (Carezani, 1999). We have two choices with respect
to neutrinos: there are at least 40 different types or there are zero
types. Occam's razor rules here.

The Eclipse of 1919
There can be no clearer definition of scientific fraud than what went
on in the Tropics on May 29, 1919. What is particularly clear is that
Eddington fudged the solar eclipse data to make the results conform
to "Einstein's" work on general relativity. Poor (1930), Brown (1967),
Clark (1984) and McCausland (2001) all address the issues surrounding
this eclipse.

What makes the expeditions to Sobral and Principe so suspect is Eddington's
zealous support of Einstein, as can be seen in his statement, "By
standing foremost in testing, and ultimately verifying the
'enemy' theory, our national observatory kept alive the finest traditions
of science..." (emphasis added) (Clark, 1984). In this instance, apparently
Eddington was not familiar with the basic tenets of science.
His job was to collect data-not verify Einstein's theories.

Further evidence for the fraud can be deduced from Eddington's own
statements and the introduction to them provided by Clark (ibid.,
p. 285): "May 29 began with heavy rain, which stopped only about noon.
Not until 1.30 pm when the eclipse had already begun did the party
get its first glimpse of the sun: 'We had to carry out our programme
of photographs on faith..."' (emphasis added). Eddington reveals
his true prejudice: he was willing to do anything to see that Einstein
was proved right. But Eddington was not to be deterred: "It looked
as though the effort, so far as the Principe expedition was concerned,
might have been abortive"; "We developed the photographs, two each
night for six nights after the eclipse... The cloudy weather upset
my plans and I had to treat the measures in a different way from
what I intended; consequently I have not been able to make any preliminary
announcement of the result" (emphasis added) (Clark, ibid.).

Actually, Eddington's words speak volumes about the result. As soon
as he found a shred of evidence that was consistent with "Einstein's"
general relativity theory, he immediately proclaimed it as proof of
the theory. Is this science?

Where were the astronomers when Eddington presented his findings?
Did anyone besides Eddington actually look at the photographic plates?
Poor did, and he completely repudiated the findings of Eddington.
This should have given pause to any ethical scientist.

Here are some quotes from Poor's summary: "The mathematical formula,
by which Einstein calculated his deflection of 1.75 seconds for light
rays passing the edge o the sun, is a well known and simple formula
of physical optics"; "Not a single one the fundamental concepts of varying time, or warped or twisted space, of simultaneity, or of
the relativity of motion is in any way involved in Einstein's prediction
of, or formulas for, the deflection of light"; "The many and elaborate
eclipse expeditions have, therefore, been given a fictitious importance.
Their results can neither prove nor disprove the relativity theory...
(emphasis added) (Poor, 1930).

From Brown (1967), we learn that Eddington could not wait to get out
to the world community that Einstein's theory was confirmed. What
Eddington based this on was a premature assessment of the photographic
plates. Initially, stars did "appear" to bend as they should, as required
by Einstein, but then, according to Brown, the unexpected happened:
several stars were then observed to bend in a direction transverse
to the expected direction and still others to bend in a direction
opposite to that predicted by relativity.

The absurdity of the data collected during the Eclipse of 1919 was
demonstrated by Poor (1930), who pointed out that 85% of the data
were discarded from the South American eclipse due to "accidental
error", i.e., it contradicted Einstein's scale constant. By a strange
coincidence, the 15% of the "good" data were consistent with Einstein's
scale constant. Somehow, the stars that did not conform to Einstein's
theories conveniently got temporarily shelved-and the myth began.

So, based on a handful of ambiguous data points, 200 years of theory,
experimentation and observation were cast aside to make room for Einstein.
Yet the discredited experiment by Eddington is still quoted as gospel
by Stephen Hawking (1999). It is difficult to comprehend how Hawking
could comment that "The new theory of curved space-time was called
general relativity… It was confirmed in spectacular fashion in 1919,
when a British expedition to West Africa observed a slight shift in
the position of stars near the sun during an eclipse. Their light,
as Einstein had predicted, was bent as it passed the sun. Here was
direct evidence that space and time were warped". Does Hawking honestly
believe that a handful of data points, massaged more thoroughly than
a side of Kobe beef, constitutes the basis for overthrowing a paradigm
that had survived over two centuries of acid scrutiny?

The real question, though, is: "Where was Einstein in all this?" Surely,
by the time he wrote his 1935 paper, he must have known of the work
of Poor: "The actual stellar displacements, if real, do not show the
slightest resemblance to the predicted Einstein deflections: they
do not agree in direction, in size, or the rate of decrease with distance
from the sun". Why didn't he go on the record and address a paper
that directly contradicted his work? Why haven't the followers of
Einstein tried to set the record straight with respect to the bogus
data of 1919?

What makes this so suspicious is that both the instruments and the
physical conditions were not conducive to making measurements of great
precision. As pointed out in a 2002 Internet article by the British
Institute of Precise Physics, the cap cameras used in the expeditions
were accurate to only 1/25th of a degree. This meant that just for
the cap camera uncertainty alone, Eddington was reading values over
200 times too precise.

McCausland (2001) quotes the former Editor of Nature, Sir John Maddox:
"They [Crommelin and Eddington] were bent on measuring the deflection
of light…"; "What is not so well documented is that the measurements
in 1919 were not particularly accurate"; "In spite of the fact that
experimental evidence for relativity seems to have been very flimsy
in 1919, Einstein's enormous fame has remained intact and his theory
has ever since been held to be one of the highest achievements of
human thought" (emphasis added).

It is clear that from the outset that Eddington was in no way interested
in testing "Einstein's" theory; he was only interested in confirming
it. One of the motivating factors in Eddington's decision to promote
Einstein was that both men shared a similar political persuasion:
pacifism. To suggest that politics played no role in Eddington's glowing
support of Einstein, one need ask only the question: "Would Eddington
have been so quick to support Einstein if Einstein had been a hawk?"
This is no idle observation. Eddington took his role as the great
peacemaker very seriously. He wanted to unite British and German scientists
after World War I. What better way than to elevate the "enemy" theorist
Einstein to exalted status? In his zeal to become peacemaker, Eddington
lost the fundamental objectivity that is the essential demeanour of
any true scientist. Eddington ceased to be a scientist and, instead,
became an advocate for Einstein.

The obvious fudging of the data by Eddington and others is a blatant
subversion of scientific process and may have misdirected scientific
research for the better part of a century. It probably surpasses the
Piltdown Man as the greatest hoax of 20th-century science. The BIPP
asked, "Was this the hoax of the century?" and exclaimed, "Royal Society
1919 Eclipse Relativity Report Duped World for 80 Years!" McCausland
stated that "In the author's opinion, the confident announcement of
the decisive confirmation of Einstein's general theory in November
1919 was not a triumph of science, as it is often portrayed, but one
of the most unfortunate incidents in the history of 20th-century science".

It cannot be emphasised enough that the Eclipse of 1919 made Einstein,
Einstein. It propelled him to international fame overnight, despite
the fact that the data were fabricated and there was no support for
general relativity whatsoever. This perversion of history has been
known about for over 80 years and is still supported by people like
Stephen Hawking and David Levy.

Summary and Conclusions
The general public tends to believe that scientists are the ultimate
defenders of ethics, that scientific rigour is the measure of truth.
Little do people realise how science is conducted in the presence
of personality.

It seems that Einstein believed he was above scientific protocol.
He thought he could bend the rules to his own liking and get away
with it; hang in there long enough and his enemies would die off and
his followers would win the day. In science, the last follower standing
wins-and gets to write history. In the case of Einstein, his blatant
and repeated dalliance with plagiarism is all but forgotten and his
followers have borrowed repeatedly from the discoveries of other scientists
and used them to adorn Einstein's halo.

Einstein's reputation is supported by a three-legged stool. One leg
is Einstein's alleged plagiarism. Was he a plagiarist? The second
leg is the physics community. What did they know about Einstein and
when did they know it? The third leg is the media. Are they instruments
of truth or deception when it comes to Einstein? Only time will tell.

The physics community is also supported by a three-legged stool. The
first leg is Einstein's physics. The second leg is cold fusion. The
third leg is autodynamics. The overriding problem with a three-legged
stool is that if only one leg is sawn off, the stool collapses. There
are at least three very serious disciplines where it is predictable
that physics may collapse.

Science is a multi-legged stool. One leg is physics; a second leg
is the earth sciences; a third, biology; and a fourth, chemistry (e.g.,
cold fusion). What will happen if, for the sake of argument, physics
collapses? Will science fall?

Einstein, A. (1935), "Elementary Derivation
of the Equivalence of Mass and Energy", Bull. Amer. Math. Soc.
61:223-230 (first delivered as The Eleventh Josiah Willard Gibbs
Lecture at a joint meeting of the American Physical Society and
Section A of the AAAS, Pittsburgh, December 28, 1934).

Hawking, S., "Person of the Century", Time magazine,
December 31, 1999.

Poincaré, J.H. (1905), "The Principles of Mathematical
Physics", The Monist, vol. XV, no. 1, January 1905; from an address
delivered before the International Congress of Arts and Sciences,
St Louis, September 1904.

Reproduced from NEXUS magazine Vol 11, No 1About the Author
Richard Moody Jr, has a Master's Degree in Geology, is the author
of three books on chess theory and has written for the Mensa
Bulletin. For the past four years, he has conducted intensive
research into Albert Einstein.

All science should be up for constant review. I really like Einstein, he described things in such as artful way. I could visualize it. It made me think.

When I worked with the new physics I did not use Special Relativity, I used the Lorentz Transformations. I think Special Relativity is just a way of viewing things, it is not a series of workable formulas.

From that standpoint, I think the plagiarism criticism of Einstein is unfair. The thing that put Einstein in the history books is E=mc2.

If no one published (not just suggested) that exact equation before Einstein then Einstein should get credit. That equation is an absolute necessity to all of the new physics, remove it and nothing gets done.

I would love it if Carezani is correct about the neutrinos being "mythical". They are such a nuisance that just muddy the waters. I like that Einstein was a pacifist, that should count for something.

Keep the discussion going. Science is not a religion and must be able to stand up to scrutiny.